Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"complete idiot" is very thorough and final and does not allow me much room for thought or maneuvre with you. If you would like to retract your label of me as a complete idiot, and just say instead that you hope I would think more about what I'm saying, that would reassure me that communication with you may still be possible. So that is what I "ask."

OK, Eric. I retract my label of you being a complete idiot. How about a partial idiot?

all right. I guess if I have to.
<Prince walks over with eyes towards ground and speaks in a monotone, run-on sentence>

eric-i-retract-my-label-of-you-being-a-complete-idiot.

Ok. Ok. Here it goes.

Eric. I'm sorrrr.... I'm sorrr.... I'm "soory"!
How's that?
What about: I "aprologize"?<giggle!>

Ok. Seriously.

Eric, I retract my label of you being a "complete idiot". I would hope
in the future that you would think more about what I am saying
(and hopefully, what I "mean" by what I'm saying.).

What's this?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'm going to butt in here and agree with you that "complete idiot" is objectively an insult.
However, whether you get all pouty about it is up to you.

Well, well, well. Looks like the pre-1967 "Vegan Mafia"^TM's ganging-up on me, yet again.
How typical! (S&H said this would happen.)


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric

I am quite the reverse, although it's not all or nothing with me either. That would appear to me to be a generational difference (quite in accord with S&H theory).

Yeah, I know you are. I agree that it could be generational. It's a "systems"-thing i/r/t Design, IME/IMO.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Many other Generation Xers here don't get that from boomer music or movies, it seems to me.

It's complicated, but it's a topic that I'm deeply interested in. I believe that you and I have a lot
in-common i/r/t our respect for Music(especially created between 1965-1970, generally speaking).
There's other stuff(in varying degrees), but that's something.

Originally Posted by Eric

The right track. Good. I guess "right" is OK with processes, but not with outcomes. Just kidding, I don't know

It was a joke. Actually, I would say that we appear to be on a productive path i/r/t communication,
and thus possibly, a greater understanding. But I'm pretty weird when it gets to terminology.

Originally Posted by Eric

I can't say that I understand what you mean here.

Well, this is a more complicated topic. Let's wait and see what happens i/r/t
the two of us being able to communicate effectively. I'm not pushing anything.
IOW, if it happens; It happens. If not; That's ok, too.

Originally Posted by Eric

OK, that sounds good, and we'll see how things go in response to these posts. Actually, you are still technically on ignore, but we'll see how it goes.

Sounds cool, Eric. Plus, I'm fine being on your ignore list, actually.
I don't post alot of stuff that I believe you're really interested-in, anyway.


Prince

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Sounds cool, Eric. Plus, I'm fine being on your ignore list, actually.
I don't post alot of stuff that I believe you're really interested-in, anyway.

Prince

That's true, but I'll take you off and see how it goes. Thank you for your retraction. That shows some class. Could you ever imagine Galen doing such a thing?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...Fact 1: Newtown saw, according to whatever reputable accounts, "between 50 and 100" shots fired over a period greater than 10 minutes...

The real question is: "Could the murderer have done what he did with a revolver?"

Answer: "Probably". Given the circumstances (unarmed) of everyone at Newton, he might have been able to do it with a Katana.

Question: If someone at Newton had had an evil AR-15 in the trunk of their car, would they have had time to get it?

Answer: "Probably".

Question: Would that person have been able to stop the murderer before he finished, saving lives.

Answer: "Possibly". Which is a lot better than nothing.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Another thing I've learned about Libertarians/Anarchist is their philosophy goes hand in glove with faux macho...

...thinking of faux macho:

Before WWI, the British army trained its guys to get a minimum of 15 hits a minute with a bolt action rifle at 200 yards, and many got 20 or 30 hits a minute.

..and each one of those rounds is more lethal, and can punch through body armor better than a 9mm.

An extreme illustration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYZHLuxXZ8

So, when do we ban bolt action rifles?

Originally Posted by playwrite

...I've been in combat and I've been hunting since I was 7 or 8 years old...

-And you can tell the first by his utter incompetence when discussing any military topic. He does make a better try at it than Eric the Green, so I'll give him some credit.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You dumb ass, I've been in combat and I've been hunting since I was 7 or 8 years old...

...Copperfield, its real fun asking Mr. PW Faux Macho when and where he was in "combat", and which unit he was in...

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/ht.../20070629.aspx

...Since the 1990s, the U.S. Census has occasionally asked people about their military experience, including whether they had served in Vietnam. There were some interesting results. In 1995, the census data showed 11.2 million people said they served during the Vietnam war period. But only nine million American actually served in the armed forces during the official Vietnam war period (1964-1975, most U.S. troops were out of Vietnam by 1972, and the big build up didn't begin until 1965)... The census estimated that, by 1995, only 63 percent of Vietnam veterans were still alive... Someone is apparently lying to the census...

Another survey, in 2000, showed the number of people claiming Vietnam era service had grown to nearly fifteen million. No doubt, it probably still grows...

...and then wait for the excuses about how he doesn't remember blah, blah, blah followed by a long silence. Or maybe, he'll finally tell us about his time in the Underwater Balloon Corps before supposedly using his trust fund money to move to the Dakota apartments.

No wonder PW's (step-?) son has more respect for his uncle in Wyoming than he does for PW...

Originally Posted by playwrite

...I've been in combat and I've been hunting since I was 7 or 8 years old...

-Incidentally, I find PW's claim that he has been in combat since he was 7 or 8 years old particularly unlikley...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

The real question is: "Could the murderer have done what he did with a revolver?"

Answer: "Probably". Given the circumstances (unarmed) of everyone at Newton, he might have been able to do it with a Katana.

Question: If someone at Newton had had an evil AR-15 in the trunk of their car, would they have had time to get it?

Answer: "Probably".

Question: Would that person have been able to stop the murderer before he finished, saving lives.

Answer: "Possibly". Which is a lot better than nothing.



...thinking of faux macho:

Before WWI, the British army trained its guys to get a minimum of 15 hits a minute with a bolt action rifle at 200 yards, and many got 20 or 30 hits a minute.

..and each one of those rounds is more lethal, and can punch through body armor better than a 9mm.

An extreme illustration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYZHLuxXZ8

So, when do we ban bolt action rifles?




-And you can tell the first by his utter incompetence when discussing any military topic. He does make a better try at it than Eric the Green, so I'll give him some credit.



...Copperfield, its real fun asking Mr. PW Faux Macho when and where he was in "combat", and which unit he was in...

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/ht.../20070629.aspx

...Since the 1990s, the U.S. Census has occasionally asked people about their military experience, including whether they had served in Vietnam. There were some interesting results. In 1995, the census data showed 11.2 million people said they served during the Vietnam war period. But only nine million American actually served in the armed forces during the official Vietnam war period (1964-1975, most U.S. troops were out of Vietnam by 1972, and the big build up didn't begin until 1965)... The census estimated that, by 1995, only 63 percent of Vietnam veterans were still alive... Someone is apparently lying to the census...

Another survey, in 2000, showed the number of people claiming Vietnam era service had grown to nearly fifteen million. No doubt, it probably still grows...

...and then wait for the excuses about how he doesn't remember blah, blah, blah followed by a long silence. Or maybe, he'll finally tell us about his time in the Underwater Balloon Corps before supposedly using his trust fund money to move to the Dakota apartments.

No wonder PW's (step-?) son has more respect for his uncle in Wyoming than he does for PW...


-Incidentally, I find PW's claim that he has been in combat since he was 7 or 8 years old particularly unlikley...

Okay clown, lets add a couple more challenges to you. If history is any guide, they'll also just go unanswered

o Please explain the ONE major mass shooting by a revolver and how it ended so differently than Newtown -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_...chool_shooting

- you know, targets actually having time to escape, the shooter having to go wondering for more targets, and the police getting there in time to confront the shooter. I guess it was that he was Brazilian and had to do a Samba between each round, hey?

o go ahead and do a video of you getting 100 shots off on a revolver with an average 3-20 seconds per shot. I want the evidence of the spread and willing to accept a barn door but dirt shots don't count. You do know how to use a camera; I'm sure someone in da Park has a cell phone with one. I hope you have that govt provided health insurance for any leg wounds – that might be one way for you, Copperhead and Justin to finally get a room together.

o And of course, these new challenges are tied to that still unanswered one of your providing any actual proof of your boasts of military background -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...072#post449072

Glickism #4 -"Glick's Internet claim of military service is valid, your claim is not"

I'll wait on any of these, but as I've learned over the years with you, I won't hold my breath.

Cue the crickets chirping.... again.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Please explain the ONE major mass shooting by a revolver and how it ended so differently than Newtown -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_...chool_shooting

- you know, targets actually having time to escape, the shooter having to go wondering for more targets, and the police getting there in time to confront the shooter. I guess it was that he was Brazilian and had to do a Samba between each round, hey?

-Newton was nothing like Rio. At Newton, the killer went to small classes, and killed them as they obediently waited for him. Different circumstances, different weapons.

I think Justin has already tried to explain to PW that different weapons have different charcteristics. One is that revolvers are far less likley to jam than self-loaders. At Newton, the killer's weapon jammed (Justin already covered this). That doesn't happen very often with a revolver.

At Rio, the killers weapon might have jammed, and more might have escaped, not fewer.

Oh. School shootings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into his mother's car and tried to escape. Myrick, a U.S. Army Reserve commander, detained Woodham until authorities arrived...

http://www.oredigger.net/satire/10-s...y-weapons.html

Though there have been a few incidents of shootings that were shortened by the presence of other students or teachers who carried guns, this is the first reported case where they prevented a tragedy from occurring at all...

Originally Posted by playwrite

...And of course, these new challenges are tied to that still unanswered one of your providing any actual proof of your boasts of military background -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...072#post449072
...

-I'm not boasting, just laying it out. Playwrite can't even sound credible when he tries to defend a record without description.

Less than brilliant indeed; attack on whistle-blowers who reveal misconduct and assaults on liberty:


http://billmoyers.com/content/slides...espionage-act/

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Newton was nothing like Rio. ... different weapons.

That was the point numbnut.

It still comes down to a person being able to inflict as much damage with a revolver as with an AR. Nearly anyone can figure this out except for macho gun numbnuts. And since you've decided to join them, the challenge still remains -

o go ahead and do a video of you getting 100 shots off on a revolver with an average 3-20 seconds per shot. I want the evidence of the spread and willing to accept a barn door but dirt shots don't count. You do know how to use a camera; I'm sure someone in da Park has a cell phone with one. I hope you have that govt provided health insurance for any leg wounds – that might be one way for you, Copperhead and Justin to finally get a room together.

I'm still waiting for the video. You would think with all the prowess you all claim on weaponry that at least one of you could operate a cell phone camera.

Really, do you how many youtube videos are posted every day? 5 year olds do it. So, if you’re not posting a video, I doubt it has something to do with camera skills. Now what could it be?

I can see you posting a video of attempting and coming perhaps close, but not even trying? Well that undermines your credibility on EVERYTHING - military or otherwise, Slick.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...It still comes down to a person being able to inflict as much damage with a revolver as with an AR. Nearly anyone can figure this out except for macho gun numbnuts. And since you've decided to join them, the challenge still remains...

-So... I pointed out that in some circumstances that a guy with a revolver might wreak more havoc as with an automatic pistol, as in a case where pumping out more than 6 rounds at a shot is not the key; accuracy and reliability is. But PW is still getting his panties in an uproar over one quality of a weapon. He's either not paying attention, or this is a subterfuge to go after revolvers as well, which was the objective of the gun grabbers back in the 1970s.

Is that his real objective?

Originally Posted by playwrite

...I can see you posting a video of attempting and coming perhaps close, but not even trying? Well that undermines your credibility on EVERYTHING - military or otherwise....

1) I have a cell phone. It's a cell phone, not a camera;

2) Playdude is free to FOIA my DD214 anytime he wants. He has all the necessary info'. For some reason, he's never done it (or at least, he claims he's never done it). If it involves an SASE, I'll be happy to reimburse the self-proclaimed trust fund baby.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-So... I pointed out that in some circumstances that a guy with a revolver might wreak more havoc as with an automatic pistol, as in a case where pumping out more than 6 rounds at a shot is not the key; accuracy and reliability is. But PW is still getting his panties in an uproar over one quality of a weapon. He's either not paying attention, or this is a subterfuge to go after revolvers as well, which was the objective of the gun grabbers back in the 1970s.

Is that his real objective?



1) I have a cell phone. It's a cell phone, not a camera;

2) Playdude is free to FOIA my DD214 anytime he wants. He has all the necessary info'. For some reason, he's never done it (or at least, he claims he's never done it). If it involves an SASE, I'll be happy to reimburse the self-proclaimed trust fund baby.

Every one of those responses is pathetic, even for you.

Post a video to show how a revolver has some mysterious means for potential more mass killing than an AR. What a joke.

Okay, so you can't afford a cell phone with a video camera. You can't beg borrow or steal one for an under 5 minute clip??? Pathetic excuse.

And the publically available information (that you might have used to establish your supposed identity here)??? We've been through that enough to make it one of your zombies -
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...072#post449072

Like I said, pathetic. Now go back to your hole.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Post a video to show how a revolver has some mysterious means for potential more mass killing than an AR...

-Irrelevant. As many people have pointed out, the mass murderer failed to kill as many people as he wanted too because his weapon jammed. Under the circumstances under which the mass murder occurred, he would have been better off with revolvers, unless PW has found a way to make an AR as reliable as a revolver. When he does, he can post it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Okay, so you can't afford a cell phone with a video camera...

-I can afford one, I don't want one.
BTW, why am I expected to waste my time creating a video, when PW just pulls some stuff off the internet?!

It's a good thing they don't teach SPORTS to mass murderers.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

It's a good thing they don't teach SPORTS to mass murderers.

_ssshhh...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Irrelevant. As many people have pointed out, the mass murderer failed to kill as many people as he wanted too because his weapon jammed. Under the circumstances under which the mass murder occurred, he would have been better off with revolvers, unless PW has found a way to make an AR as reliable as a revolver. When he does, he can post it.


-I can afford one, I don't want one.
BTW, why am I expected to waste my time creating a video, when PW just pulls some stuff off the internet?!

I realize this might be a little too far advance for you, but take it down to Shakin Puddin's shake and she if see can work it out for you.

Jam or no jam, shooter fired x bullets in y seconds. I don't think you can duplicate that with a revolver.

I've given you what today is a relatively short easy way to prove otherwise (there's this thing called youtube, for example).

You're not taking me up on it and instead posting pathetic excuses just shows you're full of horseshit.

So what else is new?

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Jam or no jam, shooter fired x bullets in y seconds. I don't think you can duplicate that with a revolver...

-It's clear from the narrative that it wasn't necessary for him to fire x bullets in y seconds to do what he did. What he needed was a weapon that didn't jam.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-It's clear from the narrative that it wasn't necessary for him to fire x bullets in y seconds to do what he did. What he needed was a weapon that didn't jam.

That makes absolutely no logical sense - it's backwards.

His gun (supposedly) jammed and yet the mass killings still happened - the jam was meaningless to the outcome.

As to the x bullets and y seconds, your 'logic' brings you to he didn't need bullets and if he had taken a year he would still have the same result.

You really can't be this stupid.

In its full Glory:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...tic-facilities

There should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice...

Which is why he's got a Coptic Christian movie maker in jail?!

Originally Posted by playwrite

...His gun (supposedly) jammed and yet the mass killings still happened - the jam was meaningless to the outcome.

As to the x bullets and y seconds, your 'logic' brings you to he didn't need bullets and if he had taken a year he would still have the same result.

You really can't be this stupid.

-PW seems to be missing the key point. We've tried to show that there are many different scenarios, with many different outcomes, with different types of weapons. Different weapons have different advantages and disadvantages. If your weapon jams, and a lot of people escape, it doesn't matter how many half-assed shots you could have got off while you're trying to clear the jam. That's why some escaped in some of the other mentioned scenarios.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-PW seems to be missing the key point. We've tried to show that there are many different scenarios, with many different outcomes, with different types of weapons. Different weapons have different advantages and disadvantages. If your weapon jams, and a lot of people escape, it doesn't matter how many half-assed shots you could have got off while you're trying to clear the jam. That's why some escaped in some of the other mentioned scenarios.

Whatever.

Maybe before you break into an ongoing conversation with your 'brilliance,' you might actually want to think first about what is being discussed.

The issue was about limiting the number of rounds a civilian gun can hold. Justin made the point that a revolver could have fired the same number of shots, doing the same level of damage and in the same amount of time as the AR used at Sandy Hook.

Now that you understand that (I have to assume your capable), you can either shut up (and we’ll assume you agree Justin is an idiot) or you can post the video supporting Justin’s assertion (and show I’m an idiot).

I’m sure a big-time military guy like yourself has 30 or so speedloaders sitting around. It must be the lack of access to a video camera.

Obama, the man with nothing to hide...

Originally Posted by playwrite

...The issue was about limiting the number of rounds a civilian gun can hold...

No. The real point is whether limiting the number of rounds in a magazine will have any appreciable effect on preventing mass murders. The answer is "no".

The key here is a variety of factors of which rate of fire is just one. Semi-automatics usually have higher rates of jamming than revolvers, and the higher the magazine capacity, the higher the rate of jam, which is why, when using an M16/M4, you often put only 28 or 29 rounds in a 30 round magazine.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Justin made the point that a revolver could have fired the same number of shots...

-Yes, he did. And yet, PW keeps humping this.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...The issue was about limiting the number of rounds a civilian gun can hold...[italics mine]

-Since when does a self-described "US Marine" describe a non-crew served weapon a "gun"?!

Originally Posted by JDG 66

No. The real point is whether limiting the number of rounds in a magazine will have any appreciable effect on preventing mass murders. The answer is "no".

Based on what, your farting into the wind?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

The key here is a variety of factors of which rate of fire is just one. Semi-automatics usually have higher rates of jamming than revolvers, and the higher the magazine capacity, the higher the rate of jam, which is why, when using an M16/M4, you often put only 28 or 29 rounds in a 30 round magazine.

These are all limiting factors - that means they are ALL limiting factors. A gun that can only fire 6 rounds per load is more limited than a gun with a higher capacity. That's a limit I would like to see imposed. If you gun nuts want to limit ARs because they jam on you, I'm way okay with that as well. Another reason I wanted the video is to see your ‘human jamming' as you try to cycle through 30 fastloaders - nothing like a misdirected bullet in the old brain pan to 'jam' one up.

-

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Since when does a self-described "US Marine" describe a non-crew served weapon a "gun"?!

When we get to a certain age, we've become pretty adept at having to lower ourselves so that we can talk to people like you. It's much like how a wise adult will take a knee to talk to a child. For others, sometimes we have to talk real slow in a language that they might understand. Another reason for the video so I wouldn’t force you into more big words.

Still waiting for the video.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...These are all limiting factors - that means they are ALL limiting factors...

-Would limiting mags to 10 rounds have saved anyone?

No. And for some people, that doesn't matter. We all know what the real objective is.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... When we get to a certain age, we've become pretty adept at having to lower ourselves so that we can talk to people like you...

-So was not being able to come up with the name of a song every single solitary Marrine has had to learn since WWII another example of his aptitude at "speaking down" to people?

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Now, he goes around singing that friken song about when a soldier dies and goes to heaven, not to fear, he'll find a marine guarding the pearly gates....

...that obscure song popularly known as the Marine Hymn...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Would limiting mags to 10 rounds have saved anyone?

No.

That is conjecture AND, more importantly, not what the challenge was that you butted into.

The challenge was shooting around 150 rounds with a revolver in the same time as the AR used in Sandy Hook. You can either agree that is not going to ever happen or you can post the video showing otherwise.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? It may be because you really are too stupid to grasp it or it may be that your not man enough to admit when you're wrong. Which is it?

Post all the attempts at character assassination and other horseshit you want; none of that meets the original challenge - it just shows that the question regarding you is either stupidity or cowardness. I think it’s most likely a combo.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That is conjecture AND, more importantly, not what the challenge was that you butted into...

-I thought the original challenge was to save all these cute kids that PW was so happy to emotionally exploit for his gun grabber agenda:

Originally Posted by playwrite

No more or less than it was the business of these little first graders -



nor these -



F. U.

...everyone else wanted him to explain how a 10 round limit on magazines would have saved them. PW hasn't, because he can't.

Now, if one of the teachers had had a concealed carry, you can bet, that with the warning those teachers had, that a few of those cute faces would have been saved.

Period.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-I thought the original challenge was to save all these cute kids that PW was so happy to emotionally exploit for his gun grabber agenda:



...everyone else wanted him to explain how a 10 round limit on magazines would have saved them. PW hasn't, because he can't.

Now, if one of the teachers had had a concealed carry, you can bet, that with the warning those teachers had, that a few of those cute faces would have been saved.

Period.

You butted in at the point of the challenge and specifically sided with Justin and Copperhead on that point.

If you want to concede that I'm right about a revolver being less able to spray bullets, we might have a starting point to get back to the larger issue. We could also get there by you proving me wrong with that video. If you refuse to do either, why should I bother trying to have a dialogue with you when you are clearly not going to make any attempt at being an honest person???

Originally Posted by playwrite

...If you want to concede that I'm right about a revolver being less able to spray bullets..

-No, their point (if PW would go back and check), was that a revolver could kill a bunch of unarmed children and schoolteachers hiding in their classrooms as they waited for the cops to show up quickly enough.

Maybe PW should try something new: Debating people's actual, relevant points.